6 ms·

The city isn't being bullied, Uber is. Nobody is forcing the mayor to ride in Uber. > The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something

The city isn't being bullied, Uber is. Nobody is forcing the mayor to ride in Uber. > The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse. No. The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all. The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city. Thanks, but no-thanks, standardized or not.

studentrob 10y ago
> The city isn't being bullied, Uber is. I said both are bullying each other. > The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all. "Standard" policy, or just "policy", same thing. The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out. > The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money. It's good for the city, and it is more likely they'll get re-elected if they do so. They also need to balance public safety and consider public perception of these issues while constantly sharing facts with the public. It's not an easy job.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > I said both are bullying each other. How can a city - a bureaucracy - be bullied? If I file a lot of paperwork they get paid for dealing with it. If I scoff at a law, the city employees don't personally suffer. > The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out. The city has nothing to offer except to stop interfering and they win simply by dragging the process out. > That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money. Yes, they are incentivized to do it but those incentives don't align with the residents. We could extract more money by raising your personal tax rate to 100% but while that would superficially help revenue it would ultimately hurt the community (you'll feel robbed by your neighbors) and the business climate in the city. People already pay sales tax on Uber rides, and Uber (drivers) pay tax on gasoline, cars, etc. The city is already collecting at multiple points. > They also need to balance public safety They've shown that's not a concern with this nonsense over fingerprinting; Uber rides are already an order of magnitude safer than cabs because your account is linked to the car you enter, whose path is being logged in the cloud, etc.
  - studentrob 10y ago
    > How can a city - a bureaucracy - be bullied? Public officials hold positions as both representatives and leaders. Their voice holds sway. When a company attempts to hammer home the message that they are right and local officials are wrong, that's bullying. It's normal and happens all the time. What I'm suggesting is rather than fighting in the public arena via 3rd party messaging which is saying "I'm right, they're wrong", these parties would be better off calmly stating their positions to the public via their official mediums, or doing it at the negotiation table. It's clear that hasn't happened because this has blossomed into a dramatic news story.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > When a company attempts to hammer home the message that they are right and local officials are wrong, that's bullying. The city officials making up nonsense about fingerprinting drivers, for safety, is the bullying. Implying that Uber and Lyft drivers are rapists and the companies don't care. And lying about the ability of fingerprint to save lives, even if. Given that officials are managing perception, not fact, they are wrong, and deserve to be called out for it. That's not bullying, just the price of making unsupportable claims. > Public officials hold positions as both representatives and leaders. Their voice holds sway. Unless that magically makes them right, it's irrelevant. > these parties would be better off calmly stating their positions to the public via their official mediums, or doing it at the negotiation table. How would negotiating for the same rights as any other business help Uber and Lyft? Please sir, may I have the right to buy gas, serve passengers, etc? When you deal with people for whom perception is more important than facts, you're never going to win by discussing facts.
      - studentrob 10y ago
        > When you deal with people for whom perception is more important than facts, you're never going to win by discussing facts. I think you're missing my point about perception. The world runs on perception. When presented with the same facts, even two identical twins may come up with a different conclusion. They each lead different lives. I understand where you're coming from because I used to believe in hard truths too. This is the main point of our disagreement, and it's not worth discussing the details of the situation in Austin further without first agreeing on this point. I know we'll disagree on Austin because of our disagreement about perception of facts. Perhaps the world's most famous diplomat, Henry Kissinger, discusses this frequently, for example here [1], here [2], and here [3]. I think [3] is the best example because it shows when Kissinger changed his point of view on the subject of facts vs. perception. This is a man who opened up China to trading with the rest of the world after 30 years of disconnect. He's not perfect but he knows how to work with people and make things happen. > How would negotiating for the same rights as any other business help Uber and Lyft? Please sir, may I have the right to buy gas, serve passengers, etc? I think you have to come to the table with a mindset other than "you're out to get us". You need to believe that there is some merit to the government or people's position, and that they might have reason to believe that the public perceive a government background check is more secure than a private one, and would vote accordingly (as they did). Whether the fingerprint-based background check is better or not becomes irrelevant at the negotiating table. One can't wave a magic wand and change public perception to align with what you believe. Politicians will negotiate based on the public's view. The facts about background checks are useful to present on U/L's website or in media, but the only thing that matters to the politician will be public perception. This is why you see some politicians flipping on things like gay marriage. They weren't necessarily ideologically against it in 1990, they just felt they didn't have the strength to change the voters' view on the topic. You can call that weakness but there are tons of issues like this and gauging public opinion is really hard. Politicians spend all their time at it. There's a pretty good podcast from This American Life on the subject [4]. Politicians spend all their time calling people asking for money, which is a way of connecting with people and hearing their views. Barney Frank says, "If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district." [4] [1] https://youtu.be/wooGL__-OvA?t=10m06s https://youtu.be/wooGL__-OvA?t=10m06s [2] https://youtu.be/wooGL__-OvA?t=57m24s https://youtu.be/wooGL__-OvA?t=57m24s [3] https://youtu.be/_eM_z4vRxrA?t=5m52s https://youtu.be/_eM_z4vRxrA?t=5m52s [4] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...

studentrob 10y ago

> The city isn't being bullied, Uber is. I said both are bullying each other. > The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all. "Standard" policy, or just "policy", same thing. The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out. > The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money. It's good for the city, and it is more likely they'll get re-elected if they do so. They also need to balance public safety and consider public perception of these issues while constantly sharing facts with the public. It's not an easy job.

EdHominem 10y ago
> I said both are bullying each other. How can a city - a bureaucracy - be bullied? If I file a lot of paperwork they get paid for dealing with it. If I scoff at a law, the city employees don't personally suffer. > The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out. The city has nothing to offer except to stop interfering and they win simply by dragging the process out. > That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money. Yes, they are incentivized to do it but those incentives don't align with the residents. We could extract more money by raising your personal tax rate to 100% but while that would superficially help revenue it would ultimately hurt the community (you'll feel robbed by your neighbors) and the business climate in the city. People already pay sales tax on Uber rides, and Uber (drivers) pay tax on gasoline, cars, etc. The city is already collecting at multiple points. > They also need to balance public safety They've shown that's not a concern with this nonsense over fingerprinting; Uber rides are already an order of magnitude safer than cabs because your account is linked to the car you enter, whose path is being logged in the cloud, etc.
- studentrob 10y ago
  > How can a city - a bureaucracy - be bullied? Public officials hold positions as both representatives and leaders. Their voice holds sway. When a company attempts to hammer home the message that they are right and local officials are wrong, that's bullying. It's normal and happens all the time. What I'm suggesting is rather than fighting in the public arena via 3rd party messaging which is saying "I'm right, they're wrong", these parties would be better off calmly stating their positions to the public via their official mediums, or doing it at the negotiation table. It's clear that hasn't happened because this has blossomed into a dramatic news story.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > When a company attempts to hammer home the message that they are right and local officials are wrong, that's bullying. The city officials making up nonsense about fingerprinting drivers, for safety, is the bullying. Implying that Uber and Lyft drivers are rapists and the companies don't care. And lying about the ability of fingerprint to save lives, even if. Given that officials are managing perception, not fact, they are wrong, and deserve to be called out for it. That's not bullying, just the price of making unsupportable claims. > Public officials hold positions as both representatives and leaders. Their voice holds sway. Unless that magically makes them right, it's irrelevant. > these parties would be better off calmly stating their positions to the public via their official mediums, or doing it at the negotiation table. How would negotiating for the same rights as any other business help Uber and Lyft? Please sir, may I have the right to buy gas, serve passengers, etc? When you deal with people for whom perception is more important than facts, you're never going to win by discussing facts.
    - studentrob 10y ago
      > When you deal with people for whom perception is more important than facts, you're never going to win by discussing facts. I think you're missing my point about perception. The world runs on perception. When presented with the same facts, even two identical twins may come up with a different conclusion. They each lead different lives. I understand where you're coming from because I used to believe in hard truths too. This is the main point of our disagreement, and it's not worth discussing the details of the situation in Austin further without first agreeing on this point. I know we'll disagree on Austin because of our disagreement about perception of facts. Perhaps the world's most famous diplomat, Henry Kissinger, discusses this frequently, for example here [1], here [2], and here [3]. I think [3] is the best example because it shows when Kissinger changed his point of view on the subject of facts vs. perception. This is a man who opened up China to trading with the rest of the world after 30 years of disconnect. He's not perfect but he knows how to work with people and make things happen. > How would negotiating for the same rights as any other business help Uber and Lyft? Please sir, may I have the right to buy gas, serve passengers, etc? I think you have to come to the table with a mindset other than "you're out to get us". You need to believe that there is some merit to the government or people's position, and that they might have reason to believe that the public perceive a government background check is more secure than a private one, and would vote accordingly (as they did). Whether the fingerprint-based background check is better or not becomes irrelevant at the negotiating table. One can't wave a magic wand and change public perception to align with what you believe. Politicians will negotiate based on the public's view. The facts about background checks are useful to present on U/L's website or in media, but the only thing that matters to the politician will be public perception. This is why you see some politicians flipping on things like gay marriage. They weren't necessarily ideologically against it in 1990, they just felt they didn't have the strength to change the voters' view on the topic. You can call that weakness but there are tons of issues like this and gauging public opinion is really hard. Politicians spend all their time at it. There's a pretty good podcast from This American Life on the subject [4]. Politicians spend all their time calling people asking for money, which is a way of connecting with people and hearing their views. Barney Frank says, "If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district." [4] [1] https://youtu.be/wooGL__-OvA?t=10m06s https://youtu.be/wooGL__-OvA?t=10m06s [2] https://youtu.be/wooGL__-OvA?t=57m24s https://youtu.be/wooGL__-OvA?t=57m24s [3] https://youtu.be/_eM_z4vRxrA?t=5m52s https://youtu.be/_eM_z4vRxrA?t=5m52s [4] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...